Hey! I am a senior in college and I am starting to consider where I want to go to grad school. I have heard many mixed opinions about different aspects of grad school, so I thought that I would seek help on college confidential.
A few things that I want to know:
Is graduate school easier to get into than an undergraduate program? I heard that even the Ivy league schools are much easier to get into for grad school
I heard that graduate schools is actually EASIER than your undergrad... true?
How hard is it to get scholarships in grad school (directly from your uni) ?
Is it "better" to attend the uni you went to for undergrad, or switch to a different uni (especially if you want to live elsewhere, i.e. not in your current state) ?
Two very different beasts. Grad school is far more specialized than undergrad. You apply to graduate school for a specific area and specific department. The people you compete against for admission to a particular department will have concentrated in that same area and will tend to have numerous accomplishments/experiences/credentials in that area.
Sidenote: “Ivy League” is a sports conference. That’s all the designation means. Sure, the schools that are part of the Ivy League are generally of high academic caliber, but so are lots of other schools. Like I said above, grad school is far more specialized, and you apply for a specific department or to work with a specific professor. The strength of a particular graduate department has very little to do with the name of the school. The strength of a particular department, and for a PhD, your advisor, are what matter–not the name of the school.
Grades tend to be inflated at the graduate level--it varies from field to field and department to department and program to program, but grades generally range from A to B. Again, it depends on the department, but in my own program for example, getting a B means you weren't quite up to par, and a C is essentially a failing grade.
If you’re doing a research-based degree, ie a PhD or thesis Masters, then more time will be spent on research and less on classwork. This is especially true for a PhD, which is a research degree. Is it easier or harder to perform novel and independent research than it is to take classes? I don’t know. Probably depends on the person. But, again, the expectations and standards tend to be higher for graduate level work in general, especially research.
Admission rates depend on the selectivity of the program and the kind of degree you are seeking. If you are going for a non-Thesis (sometimes called professional) Masters degree, then you might expect a bit easier admissions than for a Ph.D. This is because non-Thesis Masters students are expected to self fund their degree while most Ph.D. students are supported by the department as a Teaching or Research Assistant. Students taking a Thesis masters degree will often be expected to self-fund when they are in a department that also has a Ph.D. program. If the Masters is the highest degree offered, there will probably be some Teaching Assistantships available. The admission rates in a Thesis Masters program also depend on the kind of program you are in. Generally, there are fewer students in those programs because large numbers cannot be accommodated by the faculty for research toward a Thesis.
It depends on the program, and I wouldn't say "easier." The acceptance rates for many graduate programs are lower than the acceptance rate for undergrad programs at the same schools, but that's because graduate applicants tend to be more self-selecting. For example, you wouldn't apply to the Stanford economics PhD program unless you already had great grades and GRE scores; you'd select yourself out. Many programs also have more stringent upfront requirements than an undergrad program - like Columbia's MPH programs that require 2 years of work experience.
No.
Depends on the program. For PhD programs in academic fields, it's standard to get a full funding package - tuition and fees paid, health insurance covered, and a living stipend. That's common in some academic MS programs in the sciences, too. However, for many professional programs and for academic MA programs in the social sciences and humanities, it's very difficult to get scholarships - and some universities flat out don't provide them at all.
It depends on the university and the field. For example, in my field, if a Stanford or Michigan undergrad decided to attend Stanford or Michigan for their PhD that would be a completely understandable choice - those are top 5 programs in the field. Likewise, if a UCSB undergrad who wanted to study stereotyping and discrimination chose to stay at UCSB for grad school, that would be an understandable and excellent choice. But if your program is mid-ranked or low-ranked for grad school, or not a good fit for your research interests, it's better to switch.
You know, grad school varies so much because there are so many areas, professional, research, and levels like MS, MSE, PhD…the answers will somewhat vary depending on what you are talking about. if you are talking specifically about accounting you should say so.
I don't even know why the comparison would be made, it just doesn't make sense. If you are under-prepared or not at the level of the school then it doesn't matter if it is easier or not. You won't get in. Even if a particular grad program admit rate is not as hard as the undergrad admit rate, there may still be a very well qualified applicant pool.
Grad classes are supposed to be harder but it may be easier to get a B as that is considered passing.
Again it depends. For accounting, not likely for a MSA or MST program. Maybe if you are the top of the applicant pool or have a really high GMAT/GRE? Not sure on that. Maybe the MBA forum knows more about the business programs.
I'm not sure this matters for accounting. For many research fields, you are encouraged to to to a new uni to get experience with other researchers if you are going for PhD. If not and your uni has a 1 yr program for grads that may be efficient but I suppose if you can trade up that's worth it.
The following is actually incorrect, “Sidenote: “Ivy League” is a sports conference. That’s all the designation means. Sure, the schools that are part of the Ivy League are generally of high academic caliber, but so are lots of other schools.”
This is a fallacy that I see repeated many times. But the fact that many people believe this to be true does not make it so. The Ivy League is a sports conference because of the characteristics of the member schools. In other words, they were believed to be peer institutions. The group was not formed by happenstance. These were not the only possible schools for inclusion when the league was established. Rather, they were viewed as similar on important dimensions whereas other schools were not viewed as being similar to those that were included. So, yes it is a sport conference but no, that is not all the designation means. It also means that those included were considered to have more in common than those not included.
Often the prestige value associated with the most competitive schools, such as the Ivy plus schools, is primarily related to the undergraduate degree and the PhD. With the exception of the MBA, most of these schools have terminal MA (typically professional) programs that are known to be far less competitive and are often revenue generators for the schools-this is especially true for fields like education.
How does that make “The Ivy League is a sports conference, that’s all the designation means” a fallacy?
The Ivy League formed in 1954 because of both athletic/academic and geographic concerns. The schools were all Division I schools in the newly-formed NCAA; however, they didn’t want to compete athletically with other Div I schools that would cream them, because they didn’t have the same focus on athletics as those schools did. (There were some class-based reasons as well.)
Yes, there was a recognition of the high academic caliber of the schools at the time - and now - but it wasn’t meant to be exclusive, nor are the Ivy League schools ranked above all others as a group. That’s especially true on the graduate level, when many other public and private schools are of the same or higher caliber in certain departments. That’s what people mean when they say “the Ivy League is just an athletic conference.” It’s not a denial of the quality of these universities; rather, it’s recognition that simply being an Ivy League doesn’t make a university better than any other.
Also, a program being a revenue generator (or “cash cow”) doesn’t make it not good. Some Ivies have some of the best education schools in the country - Columbia’s Teachers College, Harvard’s GSE, and Penn’s school of education are widely recognized as top 10 schools of education (as is Vanderbilt’s, Stanford’s, Hopkins’, and Northwestern’s). Columbia has an excellent school of international and public affairs, and also a great school of social work. Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Emory, and Hopkins all have a great public health programs. Yale, Penn, Vanderbilt, Emory, and Columbia all have excellent nursing programs…I could go on, but many elite schools have very very good and well-regarded professional programs that end in terminal master’s (and that’s true of ‘academic’ programs too like English, philosophy, physics, etc.) Just because they produce money for the school doesn’t mean they aren’t good.